What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It restored the issue of delayed deposit of PF & ESI contributions to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Service (P) Ltd.

The assessee's appeals were filed beyond the limitation period. The primary issue was the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF & ESI due to delayed deposit.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF & ESI on account of delayed deposit is valid, considering the assessee's claim of no delay and the Supreme Court's ruling.

Deepak Rajdeo Pandey, Nagpur vs ITO | s.143(1), 250 | ITAT Nagpur 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY

For Appellant: Shri Rachit Thakar, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Hearing: 11.06.2026Pronounced: 12.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 496, 497 & 498/NAG/2025 (Assessment Years : 2017-18 to 2019-20) Deepak Rajdeo Pandey, ITO, Ward-2(2), Nagpur Plot No.29, Kamgar vs Nagar, Police Line Takli, Nagpur-440 013 PAN : ARTPP 6928 L Assessee Revenue Assessee by : Shri Rachit Thakar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 11.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 12.06.2026

O R D E R PER BENCH:

These appeals filed by the same assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 04/03/2024, 16/12/2021 & 01/12/2021 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively.

ITA Nos. 496, 497 & 498/NAG/2025 (Deepak Rajdeo Pandey) 2. At the outset, we find that the appeals are barred by limitation by 433 days in AY 2017-18; 1256 days in AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively. An application for condonation of delay has been filed along with affidavit wherein it is asserted that assessee’s business stands closed and there was no Consultant or any other employee to look-after the issues. Considering that to be a sufficient ground, the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing.

On hearing both the sides, we find that the issue involved in the appeals is disallowance made in the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act on account of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI. Before Ld.CIT(A) in spite of notices being issued, assessee failed to appear, thereby relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Service (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No. 2833/2016, dt. 12.10.2022) the appeals were dismissed on merits also. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the deposits were reflected in the returns and intimation were generated well before the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decision in Checkmate Service (P) Ltd. (supra).

ITA Nos. 496, 497 & 498/NAG/2025 (Deepak Rajdeo Pandey) 4. In the light of aforesaid, considering that the NFAC had issued notices, but no details about the mode of services of notices reflect in the order of NFAC, we deem it appropriate to restore the issues for consideration to the files of Ld. AO to examine the claim of the assessee that there was no delay in depositing the contributions in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Service (P) Ltd. The appeals to that limited extent are allowed for statistical purposes and the Ld. AO shall pass orders afresh in accordance with law.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court on 12.06.2026

sd/- sd/- ANUBHAV SHARMA KHETTRA MOHAN ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Nagpur: Dated: 12/06/2026 vr/-

ITA Nos. 496, 497 & 498/NAG/2025 (Deepak Rajdeo Pandey) Copy to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Revenue 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. The DR, ITAT, Nagpur 5. Guard file. By order Vukkem Digitally signed by Vukkem Rambabu Rambabu Date: 2026.06.15 10:09:52 +05'30' Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur

DEEPAK RAJDEO PANDEY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), NAGPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments